Agreed.
Because somehow one murder in Iowa is more important that the President’s henchmen being found/pleading guilty to law-breaking, or the now-weekly blood bath in Chicago, etc., etc.
First, we are an order of magnitude less densely populated than Japan
Second, if it weren’t for immigration our population would be going down and we’d be facing some of the same demographic issues as Japan with an aging population supported by fewer and fewer young people.
We still have plenty of room, especially if we encourage people to move into “fly-over” country rather than pilling up on the coasts.
Considering the timing of the reporting of this to the convictions of Cohen and his statements regarding President Trump, I think the notion of this thread can be characterized as “Everybody, look over here!”. Which, upon reflection, is probably exactly what you were saying.
Cutting and pasting upthread reponses because this is so silly.
Japan has a population density of 334 people/km^2, the US is 33.
Why do you think the US is crowded? If you live in a city, cities are going to be crowded. We don’t like density, so they’re not going to get anymore crowded. If traffic is your worry, traffic is not crowding. Traffic is a function of aversion to public transport.
I mean, if you think the US is too crowded, spend a weekend in, I dunno, Winnemucca Nevada. It seems like your definition of ‘crowded’ may be related to something other than national population density, but only you can tell us for sure.
To be fair, it was a white girl.
Interestingly enough, the problem with many small towns is that there aren’t enough people in them to keep them alive, and people keep leaving as a result. So far from “overcrowding”, these immigrants bring new life to these small towns.
Here are some tidbits from a recent factcheck.org article on the topic:
Any response, Hurr? Any at all?
I wanted to explore his attitudes about immigration a bit further, to find out if he was part of the “Abolish ICE” crowd or not. I admit my question to him was a bit of an aside, but I don’t think it was a “dodge” because he didn’t even ask me a question.
Thanks for your explanation on the numbers. I don’t mind guesswork, just wanted to know where it was coming from. As for “white male American Skittles should have you running for the border”: There’s another group of male American Skittles you’re excluding here that are even more dangerous, but setting that aside for a moment, my first thought was “run for the border? which border? where would I run to?”. I don’t think there’s another country on earth that can provide me the same level & type of freedom and economic opportunity as America. I don’t want to run away from it, although I would like to see it be a less violent place.
I still don’t know what assertion he’s talking about. I’ve made lots of posts in this thread, probably quite a few of them contain various assertions. I’m not sure which one(s) he’s asking about, so my response is still some form of “I don’t know what you’re talking about.” Is there a particular post you’d like additional elaboration on? If so, which one. I’m happy to chat, I just don’t yet know what you want to chat about.
Yes, you’re all over the map, aren’t you. How about telling us what you favor, in the form of “I favor ___________ change in policy, because I think that will quantifiably lead to more/less of __________. As a bonus, here is a cite.” Just tell us what you’re doing in this thread, apart from taking potshots.
Hiding from this thread. 
Not at all. I’ve got a partially written response but I’m mulling it over and making refinements and edits still. I fully intend to lay out my thoughts there.
Yeah, I’m involved in a variety of conversations and threads. It’s hard to keep up.
I favor deporting more illegal immigrants because I think that will quantifiably lead to fewer rapes and homicides of American citizens by illegal immigrants.
I can’t see it. Not sure if this was a joke that went over my head, or a mistake on your part.
Discussing a topic of moderate interest to me.
And one should not miss the conclusion:
Here’s another tidbit from that same factcheck article:
I’m personally shocked that you didn’t include that ‘tidbit’
Edited to add: DAMMIT, I wanted to provide that first!
We could probably have a long and interesting discussion about that “available research that estimates the relationship”. Camarota offered a clue in the portion I quoted: “it depends on who you compare them to.”
Perhaps you shouldn’t post a cite that declares “But the available research that estimates the relationship between illegal immigration and crime generally shows an association with lower crime rates” and then try to argue that the available research doesn’t say that.
Especially when your own cite says Camarota is with “the Center for Immigration Studies, a group that advocates low immigration”
Probably no bias there.
People actually read what you link to, you know.
Where did I “try to argue that the available research doesn’t say that”? The point I was trying to make was that it’s an area with scant research. I said “I don’t think this point is as clear-cut as you seem to think” and “I suspect you’ve made the case harder for yourself to prove (but perhaps I’m wrong)”.
That’s fantastic. Here, read this (from one of the studies under discussion):
What do you think? Are you comfortable saying “the science is settled” on this issue?
I’m comfortable in saying that the cite that YOU provided says:
Now, if you think that is incorrect, then why would you cite it? That doesn’t make sense to me.